Jeremiah 13

This thirteenth chapter is complete in itself, and has no direct dependence on what immediately precedes. The mention of the queen-mother in Jeremiah 13:18 (not “queen,” as in the common Version) is favourable to the view that this prophecy dates in the reign of Jehoiachin, who, being a mere child, sat on the throne for three months, while probably the government was actually administered by his mother Nehushta. See 2 Chronicles 36:9, and 2 Kings 24:8. But inasmuch as this was a not uncommon arrangement, (1 Kings 12:13; 2 Kings 10:13, etc.,) this test of the date is by no means conclusive. The consideration of arrangement and of subject-matter is in favour of assigning this chapter to the same general period with the two last preceding.

The great question which confronts us in its interpretation respects the passage whose subject is the linen girdle. Is it historical or simply allegorical? Did the prophet actually do what is ascribed to him, or was this only in inward vision, as Calvin, Rosenmuller, Graf, and others, hold? The chief objection to regarding it as historical is the improbability “that Jeremiah should have twice made a journey to the Euphrates merely to prove that a linen girdle, if it lie long in the damp, becomes spoiled, a thing he could have done much nearer home, and which, besides, everybody knew without experiment.” The distance from Jerusalem to the Euphrates was about two hundred and fifty miles, and for each journey and return nearly a month would be needed. That such a wasteful expenditure of time and life should be made for a result which, when reached, would be a mere symbol, is, as is alleged, improbable and absurd. But this improbability rests upon several unwarrantable assumptions: 1) That Jeremiah was in the vicinity of Jerusalem at the time when he received this command. This, though probable, is by no means certain; especially if, as many believe, this prophecy belongs to the period of Jehoiachin. It is more than possible that Jeremiah was in enforced or voluntary exile from Jerusalem. 2) That two journeys were made from Jerusalem. Even if Jeremiah was at Jerusalem when he first received the command, it is neither stated nor intimated that he returned there after first leaving the girdle. There is no reason why he may not have remained in the vicinity awaiting his Lord’s further commands. 3) That such a journey, if taken, was unnecessary and useless. Even if two such journeys were made, as a means of securing a standing ground from which to deliver the prophecy, who may characterize the expenditure as wasteful and unnecessary? We must not apply the paltry measures of this world to the things of God’s government over men. There are ways of speaking more effectively than by mere words. Such a journey as this, might set before the people the impending ruin as mere words could not do. 4) That the place the Euphrates had no special significance in this symbolism. On the contrary, it was essential. The soiled girdle is not more really significant.

On the whole, then, we conclude that the alleged improbability may not be assumed, and that the considerations bearing against a literal interpretation are inconclusive. The journey of this one man to the Euphrates would not be in vain if it should help to turn to profitable spiritual account the same weary journey of the whole people.